The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Black Hole is Black Day for Earth
Next: n-stars.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 01:18 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:474c913b-ae6c-4133-8454-556476f3cca3(a)g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 4:19 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> On Jun 20, 11:26 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 12:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> > > On Jun 20, 8:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > On Jun 21, 5:52 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Jun 20, 2:27 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:> On Jun 20, >> > > > > 11:35 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:17 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> > > > > > > > 1. SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to >> > > > > > > > age more >> > > > > > > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. >> >> > > > > > > No... >> >> > > > > ================= >> >> > > > > > How does a four dimensional model of spacetime provide for an >> > > > > > alternative interpretation of the symmetric twin thought >> > > > > > experiment? >> >> > > > > It contributes a bit of mathematical rigour. >> >> > > > Additional rigor does not invalidate the usual interpretation of >> > > > SR. >> >> > > It certainly does. Apply rigorous maths >> > > to an optical illusion and your interpretation >> > > will change. >> >> ==========> >> >> > How do you think that works in the case of the symmetric twin paradox? >> >> It works with everything. You don't >> get answers 'till you formalize your >> question. > > How does additional rigor add anything to a test that is sufficient in > determining the reality of the paradox? > > >> >> >> >> > > > In the symmetric twin paradox, do you deny that SR predicts that >> > > > each >> > > > twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing >> > > > leg? >> >> > > I suppose you refer to the absurdity in the >> > > 1905 paper pointed out by Paul Langevin, >> > > among others. >> >> > No, that isn't what I'm referring to. Will you please answer my >> > question? >> >> You haven't asked a question. > > Wrong. I asked you if you denied that SR predicts that each twin > observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg. > >> You formed >> your scenario around what some think relativity >> says, rather that what it actually says. > > No, I didn't. No .. that is EXACTLY what you did. You say SR makes predictions that it does not make .. then argue that that means SR is self-contradictory. Its flawed logic.
From: colp on 21 Jun 2010 01:23 On Jun 21, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:579d09e3-eb3a-46e9-a290-25a3d52145e0(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jun 21, 4:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:bd2683bc-e843-41a1-acc3-91fd70137ffd(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Jun 21, 3:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >>news:572cf302-7007-41ba-a08d-77cf2dde07a7(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On Jun 21, 12:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:73c42da8-03e8-4f07-acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 9:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >> > What do you think that SR actually says about the symmetric > >> >> >> >> > twin > >> >> >> >> > thought experiment? > > >> >> >> >> You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked repeatedly to > >> >> >> >> show > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, > >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> cannot > >> >> >> >> be taken seriously > > >> >> >> > I have already shown the math, and I've also reposted it in > >> >> >> > response > >> >> >> > to an earlier post of yours. > > >> >> >> I've shown you are wrong > > >> >> > According to your logic you cannot be taken seriously. > > >> >> Of course I can .. by my own, and any reasonable logic. > > >> > Wrong. You said: "You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked > >> > repeatedly to show the > >> > math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, you > >> > cannot be taken seriously" > > >> Yeup. > > >> > Do you think that I should live up to standards that you yourself > >> > cannot live up to? > > >> I am not making the claims against SR. > > > You didn't answer the question. > > Yes .. I did. You just dishonestly snipped it from your reply. You lied about posting the math for the turnaround and now you lie about this. If you were telling the truth, you could simply quote what you originally posted and prove me wrong.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 01:25 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:2578d36e-3887-4f48-a460-124e8ff4ba63(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 20, 10:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:1a23b1f5-4139-4906-9464-0a92e5dc74e8(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 8:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> On Jun 21, 5:52 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 2:27 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:> On Jun 20, >> >> > 11:35 >> >> > am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> > > > On Jun 19, 7:17 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: >> >> > > > > 1. SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age >> >> > > > > more >> >> > > > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. >> >> >> > > > No... >> >> >> > ================= >> >> >> > > How does a four dimensional model of spacetime provide for an >> >> > > alternative interpretation of the symmetric twin thought >> >> > > experiment? >> >> >> > It contributes a bit of mathematical rigour. >> >> >> Additional rigor does not invalidate the usual interpretation of SR. >> >> > It certainly does. Apply rigorous maths >> > to an optical illusion and your interpretation >> > will change. >> >> SR is NOT optical illusion. Again , ,Sue speaks from ignorance >> >> >> In the symmetric twin paradox, do you deny that SR predicts that each >> >> twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg? >> >> > I suppose you refer to the absurdity in the >> > 1905 paper pointed out by Paul Langevin, >> > among others. Well, two wrongs don't >> > make a right. >> >> It may appear absurd .. but there is no contradiction or inconsistency >> >> >> >> >> If so, what do you think that SR does predict in this case? >> >> > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the >> > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal >> > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the >> > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. >> > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, >> > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by >> > an imaginary magnitude >> >> > sqrt(-1) >> >> > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the >> > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) >> > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which >> > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r le as >> > the three space co-ordinates. >> >> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html >> >> Sue does NOT think .. she pastes the same old quotes over and over in the >> hope they will be relevant >> >> > In other words, clock mechanisms can't >> > detect coordinate systems to cooperate >> > with either part of your thought experiment. >> >> That is certainl 'other words' .. it has NOTHING to do with what you >> quoted >> .. just your own word-salad >> >> > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: >> >> > All inertial frames are totally equivalent >> > for the performance of all physical experiments. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html >> >> > That means candles, torsion pendulum, >> > guns and even Rolex watches can't operate >> > differently as the result of relative motion. >> > > ============== > >> It doesn't say that. Again .. you don't understand what you copy and >> paste. > > Yes! Nope > It does say that. Nope > Now if you disagree > you should not be posting to usenet but rather > working on the implied replacement for airspeed > indicators that is as reliable as an accelerometer. > Just this year a faulty airspeed indicator > contributed to a crash so your customers are > already lined up awaiting your product. I'm not responsible for that .. nor your ignorance of physics. Nice attempt at diversion, however. The principle of relativity say that an experiment performed in one inertial frame of reference will yield the same results as an identical experiment performed in any other inertial frame of reference. However, it is quite valid under that principle, for a clock to tick more slowly, as measured in a given frame of reference, when in motion in that frame than when at rest. As long as the same is true in any frame of reference you choose. So its motion will affect the observed ticking rate of the clock .. that sounds like a difference in operation to me. You are correct, however, that there is no INTRINSIC change to the object (ie change to how it behaves in its own rest frame, or how physics works in that frame) regardless of the motion of other observers.
From: Inertial on 21 Jun 2010 01:28 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:9e6fb557-ea0f-418c-bc55-cac3603ef6aa(a)o28g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 21, 5:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:579d09e3-eb3a-46e9-a290-25a3d52145e0(a)a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 4:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >>news:bd2683bc-e843-41a1-acc3-91fd70137ffd(a)h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 3:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:572cf302-7007-41ba-a08d-77cf2dde07a7(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Jun 21, 12:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:73c42da8-03e8-4f07-acbf-92c78718d7ba(a)j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 20, 9:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> >> > What do you think that SR actually says about the symmetric >> >> >> >> >> > twin >> >> >> >> >> > thought experiment? >> >> >> >> >> >> You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked repeatedly >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> show >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you >> >> >> >> >> do, >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> cannot >> >> >> >> >> be taken seriously >> >> >> >> >> > I have already shown the math, and I've also reposted it in >> >> >> >> > response >> >> >> >> > to an earlier post of yours. >> >> >> >> >> I've shown you are wrong >> >> >> >> > According to your logic you cannot be taken seriously. >> >> >> >> Of course I can .. by my own, and any reasonable logic. >> >> >> > Wrong. You said: "You are the one making claims .. you'd been asked >> >> > repeatedly to show the >> >> > math backing up your claim. you refuse to do so. Until you do, you >> >> > cannot be taken seriously" >> >> >> Yeup. >> >> >> > Do you think that I should live up to standards that you yourself >> >> > cannot live up to? >> >> >> I am not making the claims against SR. >> >> > You didn't answer the question. >> >> Yes .. I did. You just dishonestly snipped it from your reply. And you just snipped it again > You lied about posting the math for the turnaround I didn't claim to have posted the analysis.. I asked if you wanted me to. I only said that YOUR analysis did not take it into account, and that if one DOES take it into account there is no problem. > and now you lie > about this. Nope .. you're the one snipping my answers from your replies. That is purely and simply dishonest. What are you afraid of? > If you were telling the truth, you could simply quote what you > originally posted and prove me wrong. I did. You just snipped it. Again. Now .. do you want me to post an analysis for the symmetric twins or not .. ..or are you afraid of being shown wrong. You've certainly not posted any analysis that proves your claims, despite having the burden of proof.
From: Sue... on 21 Jun 2010 01:34
On Jun 21, 1:10 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 21, 4:19 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 20, 11:26 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > On Jun 21, 12:24 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 20, 8:03 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:52 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 20, 2:27 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:> On Jun 20, 11:35 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 7:17 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 1. SR predicts that each twin observes the other twin to age more > > > > > > > > > slowly both on the outgoing leg and the return leg. > > > > > > > > > No... > > > > > > > ================= > > > > > > > > How does a four dimensional model of spacetime provide for an > > > > > > > alternative interpretation of the symmetric twin thought experiment? > > > > > > > It contributes a bit of mathematical rigour. > > > > > > Additional rigor does not invalidate the usual interpretation of SR. > > > > > It certainly does. Apply rigorous maths > > > > to an optical illusion and your interpretation > > > > will change. > > > ==========> > > > > How do you think that works in the case of the symmetric twin paradox? > > > It works with everything. You don't > > get answers 'till you formalize your > > question. > > How does additional rigor add anything to a test that is sufficient in > determining the reality of the paradox? > > > > > > > > In the symmetric twin paradox, do you deny that SR predicts that each > > > > > twin observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg? > > > > > I suppose you refer to the absurdity in the > > > > 1905 paper pointed out by Paul Langevin, > > > > among others. > > > > No, that isn't what I'm referring to. Will you please answer my > > > question? > > > You haven't asked a question. ==================> > Wrong. I asked you if you denied that SR predicts that each twin > observes the other twin to age more slowly in the outgoing leg. The doppler effect predicts that. > > > You formed > > your scenario around what some think relativity > > says, rather that what it actually says. > > No, I didn't. Again... Here is what it says: << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Now what is your problem with coordinate independent physics? Perhaps your attack is misdirected and LET is really what you object to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#The_shift_to_relativity Sue... |